Madras High Court
R.Thiyagarajan vs Thirumalai on 29 April, 2022
SA.No.365/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.No.365/2022 & CMP.No.7757/2022
1.R.Thiyagarajan
2.M.Krishnan .. Appellants /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Thirumalai
2.Sree Manavala Mamunigal Temple
Thiruvahindhipuram, rep.by its Manager.
3.Srinivasan
4.K.Ramasamy Aiyangar
5.P.R.Govindarajalu Naidu
6.Rajaram Reddiyar
7.T.Balakrishna Reddiyar
8.R.Nithiyanandham
9.Joint Sub Registrar,
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar,
Cuddalore -2. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the decree and judgment dated 26.03.2018 made in
A.S.No.40/2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore confirming the decree and judgment dated 21.02.2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
SA.No.365/2022
made in O.S.No.183/2010 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate
Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Rajagopal
For R1 to R3 : M/s.R.Meenal
For R9 : M/s.P.Vijayadevi
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(1) Even though the matter is listed under the caption ''For Admission'',
it appears that the parties to the appeal have settled their dispute.
(2) Mr.S.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the plaintiffs in the suit who have challenged the Exchange Deed in
respect of the suit property which is the subject matter of appeal are
the appellants before this Court.
(3) Though the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed and the
Appeal was preferred, it appears the respondents/defendants have
decided to give back the land that was originally taken by them in
exchange of their family property. It is in the said context, a
compromise was reached between the parties.
SA.No.365/2022
(4) The appellants and the respondents have jointly filed the Memo of
Compromise dated 29.10.2021. It appears that the compromise
was reached even on 29.10.2021. It is stated that the parties have
signed the Memo on their own volition in the presence of their
respective counsels.
(5) The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents
submitted that they have verified the identity of parties and that the
parties have signed the Memo in their presence.
(6) The terms of the Joint Compromise Memo indicate that the parties
have agreed that the suit ''A'' Schedule property will continue to be
owned by the 2nd respondent – Temple and the plaint ''B'' Schedule
property which originally belonged to the respondents, will now
be owned by the legal heirs of the 8th respondent, namely,
respondents 10 to 12. They have also agreed that necessary
changes will be made in the relevant registers and records in the
office of the Sub Registrar, Cuddalore, pursuant to the
Compromise Memo. The parties have requested that a decree be
passed with regard to ''A'' and ''B'' Schedule properties as per the
SA.No.365/2022
Memo.
(7) Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the
Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.10.2021. A decree shall be
drafted indicating that the suit ''B'' schedule properties will be
the actual properties of the legal heirs of the 8th respondent,
namely, respondents 10 to 12 in the appeal. Similarly, the suit
''A'' Schedule properties shall be the absolute properties of the
2nd respondent-Temple. The Joint Compromise Memo shall
form part of the decree.
29.04.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.
2.The I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.
3.Joint Sub Registrar,
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar,
Cuddalore -2.
4.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
SA.No.365/2022
AP
SA.No.365/2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
